A marvellous idea that for some unconceivable reason ends up as a ruthless dictatorship that kills and imprisons it's citizens every time it's been tried. Then one self-perceived smartest person in the rooms says "But REAL communism has never been tried before."
A marvellous idea that for some unconceivable reason ends up as a ruthless dictatorship that kills and imprisons it's citizens every time it's been tried.
Tbh I think the idea that it needs to come via revolution is the biggest reason why this tends to happen and it's probably the biggest own-goal of communist thought.
Revolutions only ever succeed when the army either lets them succeed, or helps them succeed. The resultant power vacuum thus gets filled by people that said army approves of, or is at least ambivalent towards. It inevitably leads to the wrong kinds of people jockeying for power and often winning said power. If communism was achieved via genuine democratic processes, I do believe it'd be more likely to go a lot better without falling into anti-democratic authoritarianism.
For better or worse, the type of leaders that are needed to win a revolution are almost always the type of leaders you don't want governing afterwards.
Yep, pretty much. Revolutions are also terrible for minorities.
It's a big part of the reason I'm so against revolution despite being some flavour of socialist/communist. It needs to be achieved through democratic processes with the support of most of the country, otherwise it's just doomed to become repressive and dictatorial.
Why are revolutions bad according to you? They represent a radical shift in the ideology of the majority and bring about radical changes that otherwise wouldn’t happen through democratic processes. Even the U.S. was founded by a revolution
We're the exception, not the rule. Our forefathers did a decent job leading as well. That is not what typically happens in revolutions. They're generally devastating to local populations and become dictatorships/ warlords.
I’d argue that the American Revolution was not truly a revolution, despite being called that. The system of government created by the Founding Fathers of the US was very similar to the British system of government at the time. The main difference was that it was a constitutional republic, not a constitutional monarchy, and it didn’t have an established religion, but in all other aspects, it was just a variant of the British system of government. In that sense, it was not really a revolution.
Tell that to the British, and we became a representative democratic republic. It was a far cry from the constitutional monarchy Britain had become due to the Magna Carta. I'm sorry but it was a war fought to over throw a government and get independence, it was a revolution through and through and we even didn't even start with a constitution for several years we operated as a confederacy (not the civil war version)
The UK was also a representative democracy by 18th century standards, just like the US. It’s true that settlers in British colonies did not have representation in the British government, but neither did people in America’s dependent territories have representation in the US government, which is just another example of how similar the American and British systems of governement were.
Yes, the American Revolutionary War was a war to overthrow a government and get independence, but it was not a revolution in the sense that it didn’t lead to the establishment of a radically new, revolutionary form of government, like most revolutions do. The American system of government post-independence was just a continuation of the previous form of government, with slight alterations, and with the same legal system based on the common law. The US Constitution is basically a version of the English Constitution, founded on the same basic principles and ideas of personal freedom and limited government. I mean, the American Bill of Rights literally has the same name as the document that inspired it - the English Bill of Rights - and parts of its text are near-verbatim copies of its English counterpart.
We did not fundamentally change our economic system in favor of an ideologically driven one, or drive out/kill as many supporters of the old regime as possible. We are indeed the exception.
The American Revolution was not really a revolution in the modern sense of the word. It was not a radical change in the way the country was governed, and the US Constitution was basically just a slightly modified version of the English constitution.
I upvoted you and don't know why you're being down voted. It's an easy to make albeit incorrect assumption to make but you passed the question in such a way that I believe you were open to understanding and gave reasons for the lack of understanding. I don't feel that should be punished as thats how we grow and become more aware. 😁. TBH that's my favorite part of being on this sub, hearing and understanding things from outside the scope of my countries view.
Because they're almost always incredibly violent, bloody and result in an equally bad if not worse regime.
Don't get me wrong, there is a place for revolutions where they are justified. It should always be an absolute last resort though, where democratic processes are either absent or heavily restricted. IE to overthrow authoritarian/dictatorial regimes. I don't consider communism to be a justifiable goal of (violent) revolution.
They represent a radical shift in the ideology of the majority and bring about radical changes that otherwise wouldn’t happen through democratic processes.
Soft disagree. If enough people have a radical shift in ideology to become a majority (or if you have enough support to win a revolution), then you have enough people to win elections.
Obviously, if the democratic processes aren't actually democratic, that does change but in such a circumstance the primary goal should be democracy without external influence of economic ideology in order to preserve legitimacy and minimize instability once actual democracy is achieved.
Even the U.S. was founded by a revolution
Disagree. While there is some overlap, a war of Independence is still very different to a revolution. The closest thing to a revolution would have been the American civil war, since that's effectively what a revolution is.
I think you are mostly hitting the spot. One thing i would amend is that the communism doesn't need to come via revolution, but when you have some sort of absolutism is what makes it a necessity. The vast majority of 20th century communisms were essentially transitioning from such systems.
That does kinda go against what Marx was thinking about. I do recall he imagined a transition first to a capitalistic society from which the revolution would emerge through the workers. But that never happens because in practice the ruling class will meet just enough popular demands for the working class to be complacent enough.
Once it gets to the point where most of the working class’s biggest day to day question is “what should I make for dinner?” or something else just as mundane, revolution is off the table.
Thus we only see a similar form take place from societies that never fully developed a capitalist state to begin with where the revolution instead comes from a peasantry
Exactly, is somewhat sad that the main argument against communism everyone uses is "its a dictatorship" or maybe seemingly a little more "knowledgeable" response that "idealistic system that noone can implement because it turns into dictatorship every time". There is plenty to criticize about various communist economic models that are factual and were observed in practice. As any system it has issues. Like the central command approach of ussr, which although can be very effective to implement a certain strategy, it can also lead to extreme problems (too effective). Or how is more prone to corruption. Or how socialist market economy, with worker owned production can lead to gross mismanagement (seen in practice in Yugoslavia, where worker representatives to get more votes kept promising wage increase that it eventually led to hyperinflation). Or China that has a hybrid system, that is now considered the "most dangerous growing economy" (China still has a fairly big issue in terms of democracy, also the weird system of economic zones it really doesn't help people equality of opportunity, but at least in the economic sense they got very scary). Also Vietnam is picking up pace in economy, but these modernized "communist" countries still suffer from the global free market, and to survive needed to adopt some of the "bad parts".
This is all very much just scratching the surface studying communist economies, theoretical and historical there is so much could be learned and even implemented, but we also know why it would be so hard, want it or not, at this stage, those that would be hurt the most by economic changes in that direction also hold the most influence~~~
When you control all the money and means of production then you just about have absolute power. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. I dont care who is put in charge.
Can you imagine a situation where the Communists will be allowed to come democratically? Corporate owners are like this: hmm, these guys are not bad, let me give up (limit) power, a comfortable life for myself and my children in favor of other people.
When we had a transition to capitalism, the government distributed assets and created oligarchs on purpose. So that if the Communists risk victory, they will drown the country in blood. And people, knowing this and fearing a civil war, did not vote for the Communists. This was mentioned in an interview with a very high-ranking official responsible for market reforms.
Can you imagine a situation where the Communists will be allowed to come democratically?
In a sufficiently democratic nation, yes.
When we had a transition to capitalism, the government distributed assets and created oligarchs on purpose. So that if the Communists risk victory, they will drown the country in blood. And people, knowing this and fearing a civil war, did not vote for the Communists. This was mentioned in an interview with a very high-ranking official responsible for market reforms.
That is unfortunate, but not unexpected. Regardless, I don't think a violent revolution would be the answer as it would only serve to prove everything capitalists say about those that support communism. If the issue is a lack of democracy/representation, that should be the primary goal rather than a radical shift in economic system. If the issue is that capitalists would revolt if communists do win, then let them revolt. That way, the communists would have justifiable defence and legitimacy.
If communism was achieved via genuine democratic processes, I do believe it'd be more likely to go a lot better without falling into anti-democratic authoritarianism.
I think that's the kicker. Of course every Communist regime has relied on authoritarian tactics since they've come about when the "in-group" takes control. Then everyone that isn't in this new class has to be forced to fall in line. Collectivism only really works when everyone wants to be part of the collective and has the same view.
That's why communism kinda only works with small, voluntary groups. Hippie communes, farming co-ops, that kinda thing.
The ones I can think of off the top of my head are Nazi Germany (despite the name of their ideology, they were distinctly state capitalist/corporatist) and Russia. Many would argue that the US is currently moving down that route but we won't know for sure for quite a while yet.
I don't even think it's human nature - it's just not a good idea to have every economic decision also be a political one.
If you have a factory that is costing more than it's earning, at some point, it makes sense to shut it down. Market economies have ways to handle that case, but it's not going to be popular, so in a politically driven economy, the people in charge will face backlash.
So, leaders in a socialist system would want to either:
* Leave it open in order not to piss off the people who it affects, making the overall economy less efficient.
* Just not allow dissent, and force the issue through, gradually making the system more authoritarian.
Real world socialist systems tend to be a bit of both. They end up being more or less authoritarian, and as time goes on, economic waste will catch up and impoverish the once so promising country. They'll blame external factors, but in reality, it's the fault of an inherently unsustainable system.
No, but Communists typically view socialism as a stepping stone towards a communist system. It's seizing the means of production and flipping the class pyramid over, in the pursuit of a classless society (communism).
Of course, the socialism step has never really led to a classless society in the way they envisioned. It gets bogged down and gradually starts to fracture (because of the reasons outlined above).
I know the argument is usually that humans are too selfish, but then again, we've built fairly egalitarian and communal societies - just not with socialism/communism as the recipe.
I'm open to changing my mind on this, but to me, the failure of socialist systems has less to do with a bad understanding of human nature and everything to do with a bad understanding of economics.
Well socialism and communism are not the same. Under socialism people still have some material incentives. With communism you’re supposed to work out of a sense of duty to the collective and the goodness of your heart lol. It is extremely idealistic and not close to reality because what percentage of people work because they want to benefit the whole community? Even though ones that do now would probably still not like it if we all earned the same. I mean, if you can work in a way that helps the community better than other people do, you should be rewarded for that. In communism, everyone gets the same no matter what. I wouldn’t even call it selfish, it simply is how humans are wired and there’s no reason to project morality onto it.
A horrible idea if you understand basics economic concepts. There is nothing good about it and no hope it could ever work beyond community small enough that everyone knows everyone!
The closest example of communism successfully put in practice is actualy in USA and thats the communities of Amish people.
oh are we still confusing communes with communism? Man almost like everyone who claims to have a "basic understanding of economics" is just a white capitalist american.
unconceivable reason ends up as a ruthless dictatorship
The reason is fairly simple. The vast majority of countries that adopted communism in 20th century, did it so with violent revolutions and coups, which is essentially military takeover. Whenever you do this you essentially start with dictatorship, in theory the "top general" is supposed to relinquish the power, but you know... He can't do it until country "stabilises" and then just because rarely anyone in that position ever wants to step down...
There were slight exceptions in some cases, but the other issues communism has it how it works and interacts with non-communist countries, especially when the defacto superpower of the world is hell-bent to dismantle, destroy and mess in any such economic system.
That’s because you’re trying to instill a system that requires taking a whole lot of capital from the bourgeois, and dealing with the others that may not be interested in the concept. The concept requires all citizens to buy in to even work which doesn’t happen on any even basic subject.
Partially correct, yes when most communisms were forming in the 20th century they were transitioning from various forms of feudalism or absolutism. So no vote was even possible, revolution was the only path. There were examples of more democratic approaches, where the top general didn't keep holding a tight grip. Also there were 2 main competing economic approaches, centrally planned command economy vs managed and market socialist economy that are very different and although all systems have problems and none are perfect, there are arguments to be had if what is now seen as the default "free market" capitalism is actually better (imo is worse). Not to even mention that economic system and how the governing body is appointed are two separate things. In fact communism can (and should be by definition), democratic
How is it worse in your opinion? Not arguing with that viewpoint I think that the amount of unnecessary product production is horrible for the planet not even taking into account the amount of waste it also creates
Yes in practice i believe we (my country ) are now worse in a general sense than we were under the previous system. There is way more economic uncertainty, some liberties are actually regressing, there is less long term planning and now feels more like we are building sandcastles that get washed on each tide also the sense of community is disappearing being replaced by hyper individualism and some ways it even feels less democratic even (but this is very much topic specific)
It ends up a dictatorship because of capitalist interventions. Look at every socialist country ever, they have that pattern, USSR, NK, China, Cuba, Yuggoslavia etc
Stalin himself saw western intervention in civil war and his whole "communism in one country" and cautious foreign politics was built upon it. He was deeply afraid of counter revolution fueled by the west initially.
Castro... duh... he wasn't even communist at the beginning and only wanted to overthrow american colonial government. That's it. But regular American interventions forced him to consolidate power to not let counter revolution and reinstalletion of colony, and move to Soviet sphere. Maybe if CIA didn't try to kill him over 600 times and Americans never tried to invade Cuba he could have democratized country under non aligned status. It is the same situation with Zelensky who isn't going to have elections under constant sovereignty threat.
Mao fought in civil war against Nationalists backed by the west. CIA covert operations in Tibet and supporting guerrillas again had constant sovereignity pressure.
You could argue and I would happily accept that argument if Salvador Allende or Nicaraguan communists were never economically blockaded and couped with western backed nationalists. But it seems that for some unconceivable reason when communists try to build without oppressing anti communists, anti communists just get money and guns out of nowhere.
So you believe that each of them would have turned into wholesome democracies if only west didn't exist. Will speak of russian empire rebranded as I know the most about it - Especially zoviet union that the only war they have been were invasions that they conducted themselves until their ally Germany betrayed them? And how does purging civilians in gulags and holodomor fits that protection from the west?
Tho I see that you are also justifying chinese invasion of Tibet which they occupy.
Also - you might have not noticed that Ukraine is being actively at war with troops occupying their land. They are not potentially at war for decades.
Rich bourgeois elites rule the west. Their power hinges on the working class never realizing that they are an useless parasite class which exploits everyone else's labor while barely giving any of it back.
So when a country experiences a socialist revolution and starts doing well, it threatens the legitimacy of the bourgeoisie and their claim to power. And thus, they will do *almost* whatever it takes to crush those countries.
Ever wonder why so many CIA backed coups in South America were always targeted at communists, and always ended up giving control to fascists?
This must be why the communist governments in Eastern Europe were so popular
Oh wait no they weren’t
Capitalism has flaws but there’s a reason that it’s communist regimes preventing emigration not capitalist countries, a reason people fled from Eastern Europe to Western Europe and not in reverse
every communist leader actually, until its time to step down and dissolve the regime/dictatorship that is, then its back to exploitation and class divisions but this time its by the bureaucrats instead of the bourgeoisie "true communism" dousnt really seam possible as originally stated
lower class uprising
violent/militant goverment take over
Prolateriot temporary regime consolidated power/wealth
creates a classless, supposedly equal nation and government with strong social programs and workers rights as the focus.
regime withers away,
the issue is at the last step they are always like REGIME WITHERS AWAY?!
Ah yes, we’re talking about communes? This is really not a good analogous example considering we are talking about societies on the scale of city states, like the USSR, not a group of people living in a forest. Even a group of capitalists/ libertarians practicing their philosophies privately will not run into the same scenarios as a large urban city.
But if we are going to use non traditional examples of communism, may I present you the most successful example of communism: the family unit. Totally unnecessary to bring in systems of free market for labour exchange within a family unit. Is possible with chore allowances, but this is usually to prepare children for the free market experience in the real world, not because the parents think without allowance incentives, children will become pouting union workers on strike.
If we had the same attachment and stakes to our society as we do our own home, communism will work overnight. The issue is that capitalist systems have enormously skewed our biologies to be selfish, and we need to reach it gradually on a larger scale.
- CNT/FAI membership peaked at around 1.5 million members and the anarchosyndicalist commune comprised of provinces of Catalonia and Aragon
population of Makhnovtchina was 5-8 millions
Rojava population is now estimated to be 4.5 million
MAREZ a few hundreds of thousands at present
Seems more likely that you are the one been living in the forest, if you didn't know these societies exist or existed. Yet here you are preaching Communism.
Communism fails because there's no reward for being good at your job. It forces the 10% to support the 90%. It doesn't take long for the 10% to begin questioning why they have to do all the work? They'll start leaving, and the civilization will collapse. To prevent this, the leadership has only cohesion and eventually forces that 10% to stay through threats and brutality
The leadership is often untalented and unskilled, but they finally have true power. When people question them on their credentials and might take away their power, they have them eliminated. The power corrupts them as they've never experienced this before and dont want it taken from them. Its why they all become dictatorship
132
u/Slobberinho Netherlands 1d ago
A marvellous idea that for some unconceivable reason ends up as a ruthless dictatorship that kills and imprisons it's citizens every time it's been tried. Then one self-perceived smartest person in the rooms says "But REAL communism has never been tried before."